Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Theagenes]

SOMETHING other than a guy showing up post-Diary in the 90s going 'Hey, this shawl was Eddowes''.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I was under the impression that the shawl first showed around 1990 or even late 80s, several years before the Diary. Is this mistaken?

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks, Theagenes. I recall reading that a long time ago. Seems to me a bit made up, what with the man they were discussing being at the next table. You see that a lot in Victorian fiction. But the bloody envelope was interesting, what with Chapman and all. If this collector DID exist, he would have taken one look at the silky long-ass shawl and said 'Nope, it's a fake. None of these women would have had it." And then when told it was not the victims, but belonged to the man who killed them and was left at the scene, he would have simply laughed at walked away.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mickreed]

If the DNA checks out then we need to question who put the DNA on that shawl, because the shawl didn't come from Mitre Square. I would feel a lot better about all this if someone could produce a document from the Simpson family dating back even a century. Forget 1888, give me 1910, 1920. A family photo with the shawl in it, a diary mentioning it, SOMETHING other than a guy showing up post-Diary in the 90s going 'Hey, this shawl was Eddowes''.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Was it at Mitre Square or not? My guess is not. I must wait till I can get the book here in Oz, but in the meantime the provenance as been described by Richard Whittington-Egan in JtR: The Definitive Casebook. Accurately of not, I can't say.

He claims that the shawl was in the possession of the Dowlers around 1990, but they didn't like its associations, so got rid of it - returned it to the owner or what?

Then he says (and there are photos around of this), a few days later, two pieces turned up framed by Arabella Vincenti Fine Art. Now, surprise, surprise, this was the company of David Melville-Hayes (https://www.duedil.com/director/9059...elville-hayes).

So there was the source of our provenance going round and cutting bits of a historical artifact willy-nilly - for what purpose other than to big-note himself? Then we learn (note there are a couple typos in Whittington-Egan's book, so the dates look silly) that these framed bits were sold to a bloke called Malcolm in Thetford who then sold them to the Parlours who then had a bit of fun with them.

So if a man can cut off bits of the shawl to sell them separately, how can we have confidence that he hasn't made a habit of such practices.

[Theagenes]

Thanks, Theagenes. I recall reading that a long time ago. Seems to me a bit made up, what with the man they were discussing being at the next table. You see that a lot in Victorian fiction. But the bloody envelope was interesting, what with Chapman and all. If this collector DID exist, he would have taken one look at the silky long-ass shawl and said 'Nope, it's a fake. None of these women would have had it." And then when told it was not the victims, but belonged to the man who killed them and was left at the scene, he would have simply laughed at walked away.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Maybe that's exactly what happened.

So Mrs Simpson, the poor charwoman, having failed to sell the stupid shawl her deadbeat copper husband Amos had won off one of the City cops in the weekly poker game, went home dejected. She folded up the lousy shawl, placed it in the bottom of the cedar chest, and promptly forgot it until years later when the grandkids found it and dragged it to play dress up. Always the raconteur, Mrs. Simpson told the kids how it belonged to one of the poor Unfortunates that had run afoul of Bloody Jack during that terrible Autumn and that their grandpa Amos -- rest his soul -- had been given that shawl by his commander in honor of his diligent service. Then she threatened that the ghost of Bloody Jack might pay them a visit if they ever went snooping in other people's cedar chests again....

You're right this Victorian fiction stuff is pretty fun.

[mickreed]

Koz has never been a convincing suspect, but he is a legit police suspect. Apparently, at one time Edwards thought Deeming (an absolute non-starter) a better suspect than Koz, but failing to get proper Deeming DNA, he moved on and hit pay dirt with Koz. I'll bet mtDNA strands of damn near every suspect could be pulled off the shawl, as many people who've had it and as many drawers, chests, and cars its sat in.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I'm not keen on being fair to Edwards, but I'm not sure he's guilty of this charge. S I've said elsewhere, the TV programme about Deeming states that the presenter of the programme thought Deeming as the man, and had to persuade Edwards to have the shawl tested by Jari. Now that could be TV BS, I don't know.

Anyway, the punchline was, according to the programme, that the DNA was too contaminated for a match.

[mickreed]

Thanks, Theagenes. I recall reading that a long time ago. Seems to me a bit made up, what with the man they were discussing being at the next table. You see that a lot in Victorian fiction. But the bloody envelope was interesting, what with Chapman and all. If this collector DID exist, he would have taken one look at the silky long-ass shawl and said 'Nope, it's a fake. None of these women would have had it." And then when told it was not the victims, but belonged to the man who killed them and was left at the scene, he would have simply laughed at walked away.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well, you wouldn't put a lot of dosh on it being true, but nevertheless it's interesting that someone was even talking about a shawl back then in connection with the Ripper. Of course, our shawl is probably really a stole, but the terms were used interchangeably, and often still are.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm not keen on being fair to Edwards, but I'm not sure he's guilty of this charge. S I've said elsewhere, the TV programme about Deeming states that the presenter of the programme thought Deeming as the man, and had to persuade Edwards to have the shawl tested by Jari. Now that could be TV BS, I don't know.

Anyway, the punchline was, according to the programme, that the DNA was too contaminated for a match.

I like that better. So I'm back to my original idea, that he tested only his preferred suspect, Koz, and hit pay dirt out of the gate.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, you wouldn't put a lot of dosh on it being true, but nevertheless it's interesting that someone was even talking about a shawl back then in connection with the Ripper. Of course, our shawl is probably really a stole, but the terms were used interchangeably, and often still are.

They were talking about a shawl after Emma Smith died. Stride had a long piece of silk, though it wasn't on her when she died. Kelly had many items of clothing in her room. It's assumed most were burned.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm not sure when the shawl first became publicly known. I recall part of it hung in a pub for a while. I haven't made a careful study of it. I hope Edwards has, since he wrote a book about it. I'm going to hit a Barnes & Noble tomorrow to see if they have a copy, since the one I ordered from Amazon on the 8th won't come until some time in October. If I can find it in the store, I'll just cancel my Amazon order.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[christoper]

It's not a habit of mine, Paul. I just dabble in twisting your words! I'm learning much from Chris 'Twisty Magee' Phillips, though.

If the DNA checks out then we need to question who put the DNA on that shawl, because the shawl didn't come from Mitre Square. I would feel a lot better about all this if someone could produce a document from the Simpson family dating back even a century. Forget 1888, give me 1910, 1920. A family photo with the shawl in it, a diary mentioning it, SOMETHING other than a guy showing up post-Diary in the 90s going 'Hey, this shawl was Eddowes''.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

as far as someone planting DNA on the cloth--it seems unlikely anyone would even think to do such a thing prior to 1990s--as who would have known to do such a thing before DNA became common knowledge.

If someone wants to claim the DNA was planted recently--they will have to account for the observed degradation that indicates age, the anecdotal evidence that the cloth has always been blood stained and the fact that some blood-stained pieces have been cut off and separated (so the entire cloth has not been under the control of one person). (and the framed pieces presumably haven't been touched at all since framing--so analyzing them would be particularly validating).

[mickreed]

I like that better. So I'm back to my original idea, that he tested only his preferred suspect, Koz, and hit pay dirt out of the gate.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

The programme can be seen here http://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/shows/pr...ck-the-ripper/. It has quite a bit about the shawl in the last third or so.

I had to pretend I was in the UK via a VPN to watch it.

I don't think you test for your preferred subject. You test, and then look for matches. They tried to match for Deeming.

The impression I got from the programme was that the DNA was too contaminated to reliably match with anything, but that may just be TV shorthand.

I don't know whether they put the info into any of the huge databases such as Mitosearch etc to look for other matches.

[Tom_Wescott]

There's a lot of good ideas on here from christopher, Mick Reed, and others. I hope the people with deep pockets who plan to further test the shawl are paying attention. The two ideas that stand out to me are checking Mito Search, and also tracking down other parts of the shawl - perhaps ones framed - to see if they yield the same DNA results.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NRTomasheski]

Just a curious thought .. a rhetorical thought no doubt ..

How many on these boards would honestly still be on the fence regarding the scientific conclusions , if Edwards had claimed the DNA on the shawl was a 100% match for Vincent or Gull or Eddy for that matter ? <snip>

Well, to quibble: if anyone claims a 100% match with anyone, I'm going to just sit back and wait for a more scientific assessment; but I think the question is intended in the vernacular, so with that in mind, unless a direct connection between the item being tested and a murder scene could be established, yes, the scientific evidence for the identified person being the killer would not be adequate. I'd need to see other evidence.

So most of you believe that eddowes blood is on the shawl? And the ripper brought it to the crime scene, killed her on it, and left it behind without giving any thought that it was a clue that could be traced back to him?

Not I.

All right, folks, time for me to leave this tangle of science and mystery behind and watch this week's Doctor Who!

[Phil Carter]

Thanks Adam. A pedantic historian, like myself, would ask - Why the hell didn't Edwards do that?

Hello Mick,

IMO I can only surmise, going on the words of his book, radio and tv appearances, his website and his clearly abhorent money-making ideas through his shop, that he is not au fait with just how specialist Ripperological research has become and it didnt occur to him. Either that and/or he wasnt advised to do so by any helper. The third possibility is that he knew/was advised and ignored it knowing the absence of proof of Simpsons apparent special duties in registers would be detremental to his book/theory/presentation.

IMO Mr Edwards does not present himself as a pedantic historian throughout this. Because there are way way too many holes in this whole sorry saga left unfilled by factual proof.

best regards

Phil

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

Hi Christer.

Have you ever heard of a punter giving a gift to his favorite hooker?

No, I have not - but I find it very easy to imagine nevertheless.

Did our simple-minded Kozminski ever associate with prostitutes, and did he have a favorite, and did he give her a shawl?

If you are after my own - specifically unsubstantiable - sentiments, Iīd say that I donīt think that Aaron Kosminski associated with prostitutes. Thatīs not to say he couldnīt have, itīs just my hunch.

If I am wrong, and if he did associate with and use prostitutes, then I thínk he may well have fallen in love with one of them and favoured her specifically.

So if Kozminski's favorite hooker gets murdered, why should this shawl(?) implicate Kozminski?

That is a good question - you normally donīt pick favourites in order to kill them afterwards.

DNA from both of them could be on this shawl and that fact does not prove Kozminski killed her. It is merely an indication they knew each other.

Actually, no. It is an indication that they MAY have known each other. I have set off DNA on millions of objects, and myriads of other people have also set off THEIR genetical markers on the same objects. I will not know more than a fraction of them.
Overall, I agree, of course - the only thing we can conclude if the DNA comes through is that Eddowes and Kosminski or some close relative/s have - at some stage (or more likely stages) - come in contact with the shawl.

Personally, I favour waiting for Dr Louhelainen's academic report, should it ever see the light of day. Picking up on snippets of information here and there only serves to fuel speculation.

Wise enough. But can you really see this discussion taking a three-year hiatus, or something like that?
I donīt mind looking at the surrounding evidence as we wait. I would, for example, like an explanation to why the shawl, and nothing else, was spattered with blood.

I am sceptical; very sceptical, and I donīt mind letting that show - but I am too old to exclude anything at all.

All the best,
Fisherman